STATE Vs. K.A. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court in Special C.C. No. 3 of 2008 acquitting the accused from the charges under Sec. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the public servants accused 1 and 2 and under Sec. 12 r/w 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 109 of Indian Penal Code r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the private individuals accused 3 and 4.

(2.) The history of the case: On 07.08.2006, one Kandasamy lodged a written complaint to the Inspector, District Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore alleging demand of illegal gratification by K.A. Palanisamy[A1], Bill Collector to assess property tax to his property situated at No. 89, Kattabomman Street, P.N.Palayam, Tiruppur. Based on the complaint, First Information Report was registered at 14.30 hours on 07.08.2006 and a trap was laid. On 07.08.2006 evening, when the defacto complainant went to the Tiruppur Municipal Office at about 6.30 hours, K.A. Palanisamy [A1] was not in his seat. When the defacto complainant contacted K.A.Palanisamy[A1] over phone, he was asked to come on 09.08.2006. Accordingly, the second entrustment mahazar was prepared on 09.08.2006. The trap team followed the decoy witnesses Kandasamy [P.W.2] and Karthikeyan [P.W.4] to the Tiruppur Municipal Office. On receiving, a pre-arranged signal from Kandasamy [P.W.2], the trap laying officer and his team entered into the Tiruppur Municipal Office and tainted money of Rs. 3,000.00 was recovered from Ramasamy [A4].

(3.) According to the written complaint [Ex.P2], on 31.07.2006 Kandasamy [PW-2] met Palanisamy [A1], Bill Collector and gave application for assessment of his property. A1 [Palanisamy] received the application and has asked PW-2 [Kandasamy] to come on next day with bribe of Rs. 5,000.00 so as to process his application. A1 [Palanisamy] has told PW-2 [Kandasamy] that the said money is to be shared by Kumaresan [A2] and his Assistant Selvaraj[A3]. Again on 01.08.2006, when Kandasamy [P.W.2] met A1 [Palanisamy], he was informed by A1 [Palanisamy] that he has assessed the tax at the rate of Rs. 210.00 per annum. When PW-2 [Kandasamy] told A1 [Palanisamy] that he is son of an Ex-service man, A1[Palanisamy] gave his cell phone number and asked to contact him the next day. On 02.08.2006 and 03.08.2006, PW-2 [Kandasamy] contacted A1 [Palanisamy] over phone and on 04.08.2006 he went in person to the Municipal Office and met A1 [Palanisamy]. On that day, A1 [Palanisamy] told PW2 [Kandasamy] to bring Rs. 3,000.00 and come on 07.08.2006. When PW-2 [Kandasamy] went to Tiruppur Municipality office on 07.08.2006, A2 [Kumaresan] was not in his seat. When he enquired the clerk, he informed that A1 [Palanisamy] was gone out. When PW-2 [Kandasamy] contacted A1 [Palanisamy] over phone, after confirming with A2 [Kumaresan] as to whether he was brought the money demanded, A1 [Palanisamy] asked PW2 [Kandasamy] to come with money between 04.30 to 06.00 p.m. on that day and he will issue house tax assessment order. Since PW-2 [Kandasamy] was not inclined to give bribe, he has given the written complaint as narrated above.